From: Hansang Bae (hbae@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Mar 02 2002 - 15:06:48 GMT-3
At 11:05 PM 3/1/2002 -0500, Przemyslaw Karwasiecki wrote:
>I have browsed through Radia Perlman Interconnction...
>chapter about spanning tree, and I haven't noticed
>any reference to special meaning of "priority 0".
The IEEE 802.1D document is free from IEEE site. http://standards.ieee.org/get
ieee802/
Just click on "Accept Terms" a the bottom of the page.
>I belive that we need to re-think original question:
>"How to ensure that switch will NOT become root on given VLAN?"
>All of us are trying to use single CatOS knob
>-- "spantree priority", but maybe solution is somewhere else?
>Maybe we need to set some filters, change port priorities or cost
>or something else.....
>I don't know.....
>But I am definitelly not convinced that "spantree priority 0 <vlan_id>"
>will prevent switch from beeing elected as a root.
>At least I dont see any definitive reference to any standart
>defining such behaviour of bridge with priority set to 0.
Lower the priority, the higher the chance that it will become the root bridge.
But as someone pointed out, on a single bridge situation, how can you prevent t
hat one bridge from becoming root? You can't. (unless you disable spanning tr
ee completely)
hsb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:56:51 GMT-3